Parks to People Active Transportation Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 3, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates a new federal grant program to significantly expand and connect active transportation infrastructure across the nation, aiming to improve public health, community access, and environmental outcomes, with a focus on equity.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new competitive grant program within the Department of Transportation, called the National and Regional Greenways Program. It directs the Secretary of Transportation to award grants to eligible organizations for the improvement or construction of safe and connected greenway paths that are designated as regionally or nationally significant. The program authorizes $300 million annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2031.
Proponents argue
Supporters would argue that this bill is a crucial investment in modern infrastructure, promoting public health by encouraging walking and bicycling, enhancing community connectivity, and reducing traffic congestion and harmful emissions. They emphasize its potential to provide equitable access to transportation and recreational opportunities, particularly for underserved communities through targeted funding provisions.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might raise concerns about the overall cost of the program and the expansion of federal involvement in projects that could traditionally be managed at the state or local level. They might also question the efficiency of creating a new grant program compared to leveraging or expanding existing transportation funding mechanisms.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of National and Regional Greenways Program
This provision directs the Secretary of Transportation to create a competitive grant program. The purpose of this program is to provide funding to eligible organizations for projects that improve or construct greenway paths. These paths must be designated by the Secretary as regionally or nationally significant, aiming to connect communities safely.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this provision establishes a vital, dedicated funding stream for active transportation infrastructure, which is essential for public health, environmental sustainability, and community development.
Critics contend
Some might argue that creating a new federal grant program could lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies or duplicate efforts of existing transportation funding mechanisms.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for federal leadership in promoting active transportation with the potential for creating new administrative overhead.
Section 2(b) and 2(k)(5)(A)
Criteria for Regionally or Nationally Significant Greenway Paths
This section mandates the Secretary to establish a national greenway paths network, which will include paths deemed 'regionally or nationally significant.' Criteria for this designation include crossing multiple jurisdictions, reducing congestion and emissions, improving safety and access to jobs, supporting metropolitan planning organization (MPO) goals, or meeting other Secretary-determined criteria. An 'eligible greenway project' must be part of this network.
Section 2(d)
Application Considerations for Grant Selection
This provision outlines the specific factors the Secretary must consider when evaluating grant applications. These include whether the project provides substantial opportunities for walking, bicycling, and recreation (e.g., connecting communities, integrating with transit or parks), demonstrates broad community support, shows commitment to traffic safety, provides matching funds, and addresses existing disparities in bicyclist and pedestrian fatality rates or access for low-income communities and communities of color.
Section 2(h)
Federal Share and Exceptions for Disadvantaged and Rural Communities
This provision sets the standard federal share for project costs at 80%. However, it includes critical exceptions: projects serving communities with a poverty rate over 40% can receive 100% federal funding, and projects serving rural areas (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101) can receive a 90% federal share. These exceptions aim to reduce the financial burden on communities with limited resources.
Section 2(j)
Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes the appropriation of $300,000,000 to the Secretary of Transportation for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031. This funding is designated to carry out all aspects of the National and Regional Greenways Program, including grants for construction, improvement, planning, and administrative costs.
Defines an 'eligible greenway project' as having a total cost of not less than $15,000,000, or for planning and design grants, costs of not less than $100,000.
Section 2(k)(5)(C)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to consolidate definitions at the end of an act. However, the specific monetary thresholds are highly consequential for project eligibility.
Case for: Supporters would argue that these minimum thresholds ensure that federal competitive grants are directed towards substantial projects with significant impact, rather than being fragmented across numerous smaller initiatives. The planning grant minimum ensures serious proposals.
Case against: Critics might contend that the $15 million minimum for construction grants could disproportionately disadvantage smaller communities or organizations with legitimate, impactful projects that fall below this threshold, potentially limiting the program's reach.
Estimated impact: This provision effectively filters the types of projects that can receive funding, directing significant federal investment towards large-scale infrastructure developments.
Requires an eligible organization to enter into a cooperative agreement with the appropriate Federal agency if their proposed greenway project is located in part on Federal lands, in order to be eligible for a grant.
Section 2(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is a standard administrative requirement for projects involving multiple jurisdictions, particularly federal lands, ensuring proper coordination and legal compliance.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this ensures proper coordination, environmental review, and approval from federal land management agencies, preventing conflicts and ensuring the long-term viability and appropriate use of federal lands.
Case against: Opponents might point out that this requirement could add a significant layer of bureaucratic complexity, potentially leading to delays and increased administrative costs for projects that traverse national parks, forests, or other federal properties.
Estimated impact: This affects any greenway project that crosses federal lands, potentially impacting a substantial number of projects given the extensive federal land holdings across the U.S.
Mandates that not less than $5,000,000 be set aside each fiscal year from the authorized funds to provide planning grants for eligible organizations to develop local or regional greenways and paths plans.
Section 2(f)(1)
Why it matters:It's standard practice to include specific allocations for different program components. However, the dedicated nature and amount of these funds are crucial for capacity building.
Case for: Supporters would argue that dedicating funds for planning ensures that communities, especially those with less capacity, can develop well-researched, strategic, and high-quality plans. This increases the readiness and effectiveness of future construction projects, leading to better long-term outcomes.
Case against: Some might argue that all available funds should be directed towards immediate construction projects to maximize tangible infrastructure development, or that the $5 million allocation is either insufficient or excessive for planning needs.
Estimated impact: This provision provides a total of $25 million over five years specifically for planning, enabling numerous communities to undertake the foundational work necessary for larger greenway projects.